Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Tuesday,January 19,2016 <br /> 6:30 dclock p.m. <br /> Lemke indicated he would like to see a different proposal on the fence <br /> Schoenzeit stated the fence needs to be lower and more creative. <br /> Thiesse noted a lower fence will not solve the situation. <br /> Schoenzeit stated the fence needs to be reconfigured. <br /> Leskinen stated if the Planning Commission is comfortable approving the lot area, lot width, and side <br /> setback variances as well as the conditional use permit, the Planning Commission could do that and then <br /> make a separate motion with regard to the fence. <br /> Leskinen asked if another public hearing would be required for the fence if it is redesigned. <br /> Curtis stated the Planning Commission's recommendation will be in the minutes and that the applicant is <br /> allowed to make modifications to the plans reflecting those recommendations. <br /> Thiesse stated he would like the residents to be able to look at the plans and then comment on it. <br /> Curtis stated if the Planning Commission is not in favor of the fence,the application will proceed forward <br /> with the recommendation that the proposed fence be denied but with the recommendation that the other <br /> elements of the application be approved. Curtis noted the Planning Commission would not be able to <br /> separate the application into two parts. <br /> Landgraver stated landscaping will also need to be incorparated, which leads naturally to how the fence <br /> should be configured and that they go kind of hand-in-hand. <br /> Leskinen asked if the applicant has received enough direction. <br /> Gustafson stated the property owner would like to preserve as much of the yard as possible for a play area <br /> but that they would look at the topography to see how much the fence will drop. Gustafson stated they <br /> will also look at pulling the fence further back from the lake. <br /> Leskinen stated it will come down to aesthetics and reasonableness. <br /> Lemke commented it currently looks like a stockade fence and that he would like it redesigned a little bit. <br /> Landgraver stated the sewer line might be a good line to go with for the fence. <br /> Landgraver asked if this property owns the area where the monument is. <br /> Gustafson stated they do not and that it is owned by the homeowners association. Gustafson indicated <br /> they did look at whether the fence would block the sight lines on Heritage Lane and their conclusion was <br /> that it does not. Gustafson noted there is also quite a bit of tree cover on portions of the lot, which would <br /> help block the view of the fence. <br /> Leskinen asked if the Planning Commission should address what would happen if Hennepin County does <br /> not agree to the access onto Shoreline. <br /> Page 24 of 30 <br />